Yeah, there's a misconception that it is more morally righteous to give quietly than to give and take credit and that's debatable. $100M is a $100M whether the person is anonymous or not and if not, it can lead to more of the same, even if the motivation is self-aggrandizement. I mean, take that out to a long conclusion and you get a society who's competing to give away the most instead of possess the most.

I think the reason people suggest anonymity as a morally positive or superior action is because this isn't in trade. You've given it away (as noted above) without having your name in etched letters on a building, without a desire for notoriety and not in trade of previous or in fact continuous poor deeds. Consider for example the controversy around Bezos' donations.

It is very similar in fact to tithing instead of the practice of having your name called out in service in front of everyone so you can later trade on that donation for social standing.

Names everywhere could just as easily mean a culture that celebrates wealth and the wealthy as superior to others, because after all, their names are everywhere. A happenstance donation by a rich person in this society may mean far more than a significant donation by someone less well off. This may create a culture where people see helping others as a suckers game unless you get something back, rather than a moral obligation.

On the other hand, a culture of anonymous donations (and less wealth signaling) could indicate a culture where everyone, no matter how rich or poor, is expected to do their part to help others.

It depends a lot on what people's takeaways are from these acts, which are shaped by cultural expectations and norms. One should consider the cultural externalities of donations in addition to purely the dollar amounts.

Even if you'd like to pretend there is none, it doesn't change the fact that giving for the sake of giving versus giving for the sake of recognition are different things.

Giving anonymously can be a way for the giver to prove to themselves what kind of person they are.

Ultimately there are too many causes in need of support for me to take a strong stance on this, but it’s worth pointing out that many a tycoon has utilized philanthropy to maintain a positive image when business dealings run counter to the prevailing social concerns.

> though frankly if letting people feel good with a little recognition results in more donations then that seems well worth it.

I disagree. This is an attempt to buy legacy and erase their past. It benefits only those who make the donations, and whatever causes happen to pique their particular interests. It also creates yet another organization of people dependent upon the good will and whim of a single supporter.

> to encourage others to give

I would presume the tax breaks are enough.

> and otherwise to direct that attention towards the cause rather than yourself.

Large portions of non-profit budgets are specifically spent on awareness and on generating future donations. There is no need to slap your last name on the side of a building for this purpose.

All of the downsides you mention are not that bad in my opinion.

I don't feel bad that people buy a legacy. I believe that a legacy of being a massive philanthropist is a legacy worth having.

I don't feel bad that they "erase their past", because all people can still be judged by the totality of their actions.

The recognition does benefit the people that make the donations. Doesn't seem to be a problem to me.

Charitable organizations are dependent upon the whim of their donors regardless of whether the donors get any recognition.

The fraction of non-profit budgets that are spent on awareness seems to be a tangential point that I do not understand.

But when people are publicly generous with other peoples' money, I assign negative virtue :-/

Nobody is talking about that here; this is about people being generous with their own.